3 ms·

I'm personally of the opinion that if a private social platform bills itself as a digital town square and has ambitions of becoming a monopoly (or a part of an

I'm personally of the opinion that if a private social platform bills itself as a digital town square and has ambitions of becoming a monopoly (or a part of an oligopoly), then it should be treated exactly as if it was state-owned. If 20% of your potential audience can be taken away by the flip of a switch (or worse, an automated algorithm with no real oversight), then it really doesn't matter who's doing the taking away. The harm is the same.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Does tiktok even bill itself as a digital town square? Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. Without proactive moderation that goes above and beyond the bare legal minimum, a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. There has to be some moderation beyond that the government does to public spaces. At the same time, I don't want people to be functionally excluded from society purely for their political opinions not least of which because I believe people can change. There has to be an equilibrium, and I think that purposefully harassing minorities should be outside of that equilibrium.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  > Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. (...) a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. I've seen this happen, but forums never had the universal user base that modern social media companies do. If you get banned from a forum, you get cut off from maybe 500 members of your target audience. If the same happens with a social media platform, you lose access to hundreds of thousands or even millions of members. The impact of the ban is disproportionate, except in the cases of the most extreme speech (like calling for literal heads to roll, for instance).
klyrs 5y ago
Kicking off 20% of your userbase doesn't sound like a terribly effective strategy to attaining a monopoly. But, I'm interested in this notion that it should be "treated exactly as if it was state-owned." For HN, this sounds like a bracingly anticapitalist stance. Should companies beyond a certain size be subject to imminent domain? Do we seize Bezos's stock?
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  Apologies, I should have qualified this as "treated exactly as if state-owned for the purposes of establishing what kinds of speech should be allowed". I am not advocating for nationalisation of private enterprise, but merely for ensuring that they are bound by the same standards when they reach the same size.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    You can still get kicked out of a public library for yelling at other patrons. Or, say, following people around and muttering racial slurs. Should we treat it like the postal service, where breaking the rules is a felony?

sudosysgen 5y ago

Does tiktok even bill itself as a digital town square? Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. Without proactive moderation that goes above and beyond the bare legal minimum, a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. There has to be some moderation beyond that the government does to public spaces. At the same time, I don't want people to be functionally excluded from society purely for their political opinions not least of which because I believe people can change. There has to be an equilibrium, and I think that purposefully harassing minorities should be outside of that equilibrium.

selfhoster11 5y ago
> Also, if you've ever had the misfortune of helping run a forum, you would know that this isn't really workable. (...) a tiny minority of individuals will just take over the space and completely ruin it for everyone. I've seen this happen, but forums never had the universal user base that modern social media companies do. If you get banned from a forum, you get cut off from maybe 500 members of your target audience. If the same happens with a social media platform, you lose access to hundreds of thousands or even millions of members. The impact of the ban is disproportionate, except in the cases of the most extreme speech (like calling for literal heads to roll, for instance).

klyrs 5y ago

Kicking off 20% of your userbase doesn't sound like a terribly effective strategy to attaining a monopoly. But, I'm interested in this notion that it should be "treated exactly as if it was state-owned." For HN, this sounds like a bracingly anticapitalist stance. Should companies beyond a certain size be subject to imminent domain? Do we seize Bezos's stock?

selfhoster11 5y ago
Apologies, I should have qualified this as "treated exactly as if state-owned for the purposes of establishing what kinds of speech should be allowed". I am not advocating for nationalisation of private enterprise, but merely for ensuring that they are bound by the same standards when they reach the same size.
- klyrs 5y ago
  You can still get kicked out of a public library for yelling at other patrons. Or, say, following people around and muttering racial slurs. Should we treat it like the postal service, where breaking the rules is a felony?